The renewable portfolio standard:: design considerations and an implementation survey

Renewables have social and environmental benefits compared to conventional electricity sources, but are rarely competitive on a strict financial cost basis. This is because conventional sources are sometimes subsidized, their full pollution costs are ignored, and renewables involve newer, higher-cost technologies whose relative costs will fall with commercialization. Governments use several mechanisms to support renewables, including direct financial support (grants, loans), indirect support (R&D, demonstrations), reform of financial costs of conventional sources (subsidy removal, pollution taxes), and the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). The RPS requires a minimum share of electricity from renewable energy sources. Its use is spreading because it maintains an incentive for renewable producers to reduce costs, links the regulated market outcome to an environmental target, and reduces government involvement. Although it is too early to evaluate fully its effectiveness, the survey for this study explored implementation issues in three European countries, nine US states, and Australia, and found the following. The RPS target is usually set to have environmental benefits without causing significant price increases (cost caps are sometimes used). Most jurisdictions limit eligibility to grid-connected, domestic renewables. The RPS is usually applied to producers rather than consumers, and to energy output not capacity. Flexibility mechanisms are desired but a challenge to implement. Administration in the US and Australia is by government with delegation to independent utility regulators, while in Europe it is more the responsibility of government. Everywhere, the RPS is applied alongside other mechanisms of renewables support.